The owner or possessor of an electric structure shall not be limited to the situation at the time of the installation of the electric structure after obtaining permission or inspection from the Minister of Commerce, Industry and Energy in accordance with the Electric Utility Act or the regulations on the electric structure, but to the situation of the artificial environmental change due to the construction of the surrounding natural or building, and even after the installation of the structure, there is a facility that prevents others from causing any damage. Thus, even if the installation conforms to the above regulations at the time of the installation, it may not be an absolute standard for taking into account the existence of defects.

Plaintiff 1 and 14 plaintiffs, Counsel for defendant-appellee

Korean Electric Power Co., Ltd., Ltd., Counsel for the business start-up of the Dong River.

Seoul High Court Decision 72Na1755 delivered on February 16, 1973

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

Judgment on the first instance court's grounds of appeal by the defendant's attorney.

In the same case as this case, which connects the above 11,40 V special high-tension wire to the point of 150 meters high-tension, the defendant company is obligated to exclusively own or occupy the electric structure, and in particular, to prevent accidents, it is necessary to establish special facilities for the prevention of accidents, as well as the defendant company's installation of the special high-tension wire at the center of the surrounding situation at any time after the installation of the electric wires at the time of the installation of the electric wires at the point of 11.5 meters high and there is no error in the construction of the electric wires at the time of the installation of the electric wires at the point of 150 meters high. Accordingly, the defendant company is not obliged to take measures for the prevention of accidents caused by the installation of the electric wires at the time of the installation of the electric wires at the point of 7 meters high and high-level electric wires and there is no difference in the construction of the electric wires at the point of the installation of the electric wires at the time of the installation of the electric wires at the point of the 3rd.

The judgment on the second ground for appeal;

Even by comparing the original judgment with the records, it cannot be found that there was any error in the process of the preparation of evidence and fact-finding in the fact-finding that points out the theory of lawsuit. Therefore, it cannot be said that there was criticism on the lower court's whole authority concerning the determination of evidence and fact-finding in the

The ground of appeal No. 3 is examined.

However, under the premise that the original judgment recognizes the victims' gross negligence and that the negligence is not sufficient to exempt the defendant from the liability for the principal negligence, there is no argument that the comparative negligence-off measure is just and controversial in the calculation of the damages.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed as without merit. The costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Lee Byung-ho (Presiding Justice)